As the first covenant, or
testament, had ordinances of divine service, which are shaken, removed, and
abolished; so the New Testament, or gospel dispensation, has ordinances of
divine worship, which cannot be shaken, but will remain until the second coming
of Christ: these, as Austin says,[1] are
few; and easy to be observed, and of a very expressive signification. Among
which, baptism must be reckoned one, and is proper to be treated of in the first
place; for though it is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a
part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I
mean it is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in
order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and
a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit
him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the
church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the
baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted
into communion with it. Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the
administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications for it, and has the sole
power of receiving to it, and of rejecting from it; if nor satisfied, he may
reject a person thought fit by a church, and admit a person to baptism not
thought fit by a church; but a disagreement is not desirable nor advisable: the
orderly, regular, scriptural rule of proceeding seems to be this: a person
inclined to submit to baptism, and to join in communion with a church, should
first apply to an administrator; and upon giving him satisfaction, be baptized
by him; and then should propose to the church for communion; when he would be
able to answer all proper questions: if asked, to give a reason of the hope that
is in him, he is ready to do it; if a testimony of his life and conversation is
required, if none present can give it, he can direct where it is to be had; and
if the question is put to him, whether he is a baptized person or not, he can
answer in the affirmative, and give proof of it, and so the way is clear for his
admission into church fellowship. So Saul, when converted, was immediately
baptized by Ananias, without any previous knowledge and consent of the church;
and, it was many days after this that he proposed to join himself to the
disciples, and was received (Acts 9:18,19,23,26-28), and as it is water baptism
which is meant, I shall,

I. First, prove that this
is peculiar to the gospel dispensation, is a standing ordinance in it, and will
be continued to the second coming of Christ. This is opposed to the sentiments
of such who say baptism was in use before the times of John, of Christ and his
apostles; and of such who restrain water baptism to the interval between the
beginning of John's ministry and the death of Christ, when they supposed this,
with other external rites, ceased; and of such, as the Socinians,[2] who think that only the first converts to
Christianity in a nation are to be baptized, and their children, but not their
after posterity. There were indeed various washings, bathings, or baptisms,
under the legal dispensation, for the purification of persons and things
unclean, by the ceremonial law; which had a doctrine in them, called the
doctrine of baptists, which taught the cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ;
but there was nothing similar in them to the ordinance of water baptism, but
immersion only. The Jews pretend, their ancestors were received into covenant by
baptism, or dipping, as well as by circumcision and sacrifice; and that
proselytes from heathenism were received the same way; and this is greedily
grasped at by the advocates for infant baptism; who fancy that John, Christ, and
his apostles, took up this custom as they found it, and continued it; and which
they imagine accounts for the silence about it in the New Testament, and why
there is neither precept for it, nor example of it; but surely if it was in such
common use as pretended, though no new precept had been given, there would have
been precedents enough of it; but no proof is to be given of any such practice
obtaining in those times, neither from the Old nor New Testament; nor from the
apocryphal books written by Jews between them; nor from Josephus and Philo the
Jew, who wrote a little after the times of John and Christ; nor from the Jewish
Misnah, or book of traditions: only from later writings of theirs, too late for
the proof of it before those times.[3] John
was the first administrator of the ordinance of baptism, and therefore is called
"the Baptist" (Matthew 3:1), by way of emphasis; whereas, had it been
in common use, there must have been many baptizers before him, who had a like
claim to this title; and why should the people be so alarmed with it, as to come
from all parts to see it administered, and to hear it preached, when, had it
been in frequent use, they must have often seen it? and why should the Jewish
Sanhedrim send priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, to know who he was,
whether the Messiah, or his forerunner Elias, or that prophet spoken of and
expected? and when he confessed, and denied that he was neither of them, they
say to him, "Why baptizest thou then?" by which thing and which they
expected it appears it was a new thing, and which they expected when the Messiah
came, but not before; and that then it would be performed by some great
personage, one or other of the before mentioned; whereas, had it been performed
by an ordinary teacher, common Rabbi or doctor, priest or Levite, in ages
immemorial, there could have been no room for such a question; and had this been
the case, there would have been no difficulty with the Jews to answer the
question of our Lord; "The baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or
of men?" they could have answered, It was a tradition of theirs, a custom
in use among them time out of mind, had this been the known case; nor would they
have been subject to any dilemma: but John's baptism was not a device of men;
but the "counsel of God", according to his will and wise determination
(Luke 7:30). John had a mission and commission from God, he was a man sent of
God, and sent to baptize (John 1:6,33), and his baptism was water baptism, this
he affirms, and the places he made use of for that purpose show it, and none
will deny it.

Now his baptism, and that
of Christ and his apostles, were the same. Christ was baptized by John, and his
baptism was surely Christian baptism; of this no one can doubt (Matthew
3:13-17), and his disciples also were baptized by him; for by whom else could
they be baptized? not by Christ himself, for he baptized none (John 4:2). And it
is observable, that the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ and his
apostles, were at the same time; they were contemporary, and did not the one
succeed the other: now it is not reasonable to suppose there should be two sorts
of baptism administered at the same time; but one and the same by both (John
3:22,23,26; 4:1,2). The baptism of John, and that which was practiced by the
apostles of Christ, even after his death and resurrection from the dead, agreed,

1. In the subjects thereof.
Those whom John baptized were sensible penitent sinners, who were convinced of
their sins, and made an ingenuous confession of them; and of whom he required
"fruits meet for repentance", and which showed it to be genuine; and
hence his baptism is called, "the baptism of repentance", because he
required it previous to it (Matthew 3:6-8; Mark 1:4). So the apostles of Christ
exhorted men to repent, to profess their repentance, and give evidence of it,
previous to their baptism (Acts 2:38). John said to the people that came to his
baptism, "That they should believe on him which should come after him, that
is, on Christ Jesus", upon which they were baptized in his name (Acts
19:4,5), faith in Christ was made a prerequisite to baptism by Christ and his
apostles (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37).

2. In the way and manner of
the administration of both. John's baptism was by immersion, as the places
chosen by him for it show; and the baptism of Christ by him is a proof of it
(Matthew 3:6,16; John 3:23), and in like manner was baptism performed by the
apostles, as of the eunuch by Philip (Acts 8:38,39).

3. In the form of their
administration. John was sent of God to baptize; and in whose name should he
baptize, but in the name of the one true God, who sent him, even in the name of
God, Father, Son, and Spirit? The doctrine of the Trinity was known to John, as
it was to the Jews in common; it is said of John's hearers and disciples, that
they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). The
same form is used of the baptism of those baptized by the apostles of Christ
(Acts 8:16; 10:48), which is only a part of the form put for the whole, and is
sufficiently expressive of Christian baptism, which is to be performed "in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew
28:19).

4. In the end and use of
baptism, John's baptism, and so the apostles was, upon repentance for the
remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Acts 8:38), not that either repentance or baptism
procure the pardon of sin; that is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but
baptism is a means of leading to the blood of Christ; and repentance gives
encouragement to hope for it, through it. Now since there is such an agreement
between the baptism of John, as administered before the death of Christ; and
between the baptism of the apostles, after the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Christ; it is a plain case, it was not limited to the interval of
time from the beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ; but was
afterwards continued; which further appears from the commission of Christ
(Matthew 28:19), "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them"; and though water is not expressed, it is always implied, when the
act of baptizing is ascribed to men; for it is peculiar to Christ to baptize
with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5), nor did he give to his apostles,
nor to any man, or set of men, a commission and power to baptize with the
Spirit: besides, an increase of the graces of the Spirit, and a large donation
of his gifts, are promised to persons after baptism, and as distinct from it
(Acts 2:38). The apostles, doubtless, understood the commission of their Lord
and Master to baptize in water, since they practiced it upon it; such was the
baptism administered by Philip, who, having taught the eunuch the doctrine of
it, when they came to a "certain water", he said to him, "See,
here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?" that is, in water; and
when Philip had observed unto him the grand requisite of it, even faith in
Christ, which he at once professed; and the chariot in which they rode being
ordered to stand, theft went down both into the water, and he baptized him; this
was most certainly water baptism; and so was that which Peter ordered to be
administered to Cornelius and his friends, upon their receiving of the Holy
Ghost, and so a baptism different from that; "Can any man forbid water,
that these should not be baptized?" (Acts 8:36,38,39; 10:47,48). And this
was designed to be continued unto the end of the world, to the second coming of
Christ; as the ordinance of the supper is to be kept to that time, the ordinance
of water baptism is to be continued as long; hence says Christ, to encourage his
ministers to preach his gospel, and to baptize in his name; "Lo, I am with
you always", in the ministry of the word, and in the administration of
baptism, "even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19,20).

II. Secondly, I shall next
consider the author of it; and show, that it is not a device of men, but an
ordinance of God; it is a solemn part of divine worship, being performed in the
name of the Three divine Persons in Deity, Father, Son, and Spirit, and by their
authority; in which the name of God is invoked, faith in him expressed, and a
man gives up himself to God, obliges himself to yield obedience to him,
expecting all good things from him. Now for an act of religious worship there
must be a command of God. God is a jealous God, and will not suffer anything to
be admitted into the worship of him, but what is according to his word and will;
if not commanded by him, he may justly say, "Who hath required this at your
hands?" and will resent it: a command from men is not sufficient; no man on
earth is to be called master; one is our Master in heaven, and him only we are
to obey: if the commandments of men are taught for doctrines, in vain is the
Lord worshipped; what is done according to them is superstition and will
worship. Indeed, as it is now commonly practiced, it is a mere invention of men,
the whole of it corrupted and changed; instead of rational spiritual men the
subjects of it, infants, who have neither the use of reason, nor the exercise of
grace, are admitted to it; and instead of immersion in water, and immersion out
of it, a very expressive emblem of the sufferings of Christ, his death, burial,
and resurrection from the dead; sprinkling a few drops of water on the face is
introduced; with a number of foolish rites and ceremonies used by the papists,
and some of their usages are retained by some Protestants; as sponsors, or
sureties for infants, and the signing them with the sign of the cross. In short,
the face of the ordinance is so altered, that if the apostles were to rise from
the dead, and see it as now performed, they would neither know nor own it to be
the ordinance commanded them by Christ, and practiced by them. But as it is
administered according to the pattern, and as first delivered, it appears to be
of an heavenly original; the "counsel of God", a wise appointment of
his, and in which all the Three Persons have a concern; they all appeared at the
baptism of Christ, and gave a sanction to the ordinance by their presence; the
Father by a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased!" as in his person, so in this act of his, in submitting to
the ordinance of baptism; the Son in human nature, yielding obedience to it; and
the Spirit descending on him as a dove; and it is ordered to be administered in
the name of all three, Father, Son, and Spirit. Which, among other things, is
expressive of divine authority, under which it is performed. Christ received
from God the Father honor and glory, as at his transfiguration, so at his
baptism, by the voice from heaven, owning his relation to him, as his Son, and
expressing his well pleasedness in him, as obedient to his will; the Son of God,
in human nature, not only left an example of it, that we should tread in his
steps; though he himself baptized none, yet he countenanced it in his disciples,
and gave them orders to do it; which orders were repeated, and a fresh
commission given for the same after his resurrection from the dead: and the
Spirit of God showed his approbation of it, by his descent on Christ at his
baptism; and his authority for it is to be seen in the administration of it in
his name, as in the name of the other Two Persons; so that it is to be regarded,
not as an institution of men, but as an ordinance of God; as a part of
righteousness to be fulfilled, a branch of the righteous will of God, to be
observed in obedience to it.

III. Thirdly, the subjects
of baptism are next to be inquired into; or who they are to whom it is to be
administered, and according to the scripture instances and examples, they are
such who,

1. Are enlightened by the
Spirit of God to see their lost state by nature, the exceeding sinfulness of
sin, and Christ as the only Saviour of sinners; who look to him and are saved;
and such only can see to the end of the ordinance, which is to represent the
sufferings and death, burial and resurrection of Christ; hence baptism was by
the ancients; called fwtismov,
"illumination"; and baptized persons fwtizomenoi,
"enlightened" ones; and the Syriac and. Ethiopic, versions of Hebrews
6:4 translate the word "enlightened" by baptized; an emblem of this
was the falling off from the eyes of Saul, as it had been scales; signifying his
former blindness, and ignorance, and unbelief, now removed; upon which he arose
and was baptized (Acts 9:18).

2. Penitent persons; such
who having seen the evil nature of sin, repent of it, and acknowledge it; such
were the first who were baptized by John that we read of; they were
"baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matthew 3:6),
being made sensible of them, they ingenuously confessed them; and such were the
first who were baptized after Christ had renewed the commission to his
disciples, upon his resurrection, to teach and: baptize; such as were pricked to
the heart, were exhorted to profess repentance and give evidence of it, and then
be baptized, as they were (Acts 2:37,38,41), and it is pity that these first
examples of baptism were not strictly followed.

3. Faith in Christ is a
prerequisite to baptism (Mark 16:16), this is clear from the case of the eunuch,
desiring baptism, to whom Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest"; by which it seems, that if he did not believe, he had
no right to the ordinance; but if he did, he had; upon which he professed his
faith in Christ; and upon that profession was baptized (Acts 8:36), and the
various instances of baptism recorded in scripture, confirm the same; as of the
inhabitants of Samaria, who, upon believing in Christ, "were baptized, both
men and women"; so the Corinthians, "hearing" the word preached
by the apostle Paul, "believed" in Christ, whom he preached, "and
were baptized", upon their faith in him (Acts 8:12; 18:8), and without
faith it is impossible to please God in any ordinance or part of worship; and
what is not of faith is sin; and without it no one can see to the end of the
ordinance of baptism, as before observed.

4. Such who are taught and
made disciples by teaching, are the proper subjects of baptism, agreeable both
to the practice of Christ and his commission; it is said, "that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John" (John 4:1), he first made them
disciples, and then baptized them, that is, ordered his apostles to baptize
them; and so runs his commission to them, "Go teach all nations, baptizing
them", that is, those that are taught, and so made disciples; and they are
the disciples of Christ, who have learnt to know him, and are taught to deny
sinful, righteous, and civil self, for his sake, and to take up the cross and
follow him.

5. Such who have received
the Spirit of God, as a Spirit of illumination and conviction, of sanctification
and faith, as the persons before described may well be thought to have, should
be admitted to baptism (Acts 10:47; see Gal. 3:2), from all which it appears,
that such who are ignorant of divine things, impenitent, unbelievers, not
disciples and followers of Christ, and who are destitute of the Spirit, are not
proper subjects of baptism, let their pretences to birthright be what they may;
and so not the infants of any, be they born of whom they may; and to whom the
above characters, descriptive of the subjects of baptism, do by no means belong:
with respect to their first birth, though born of believing parents, they are
carnal and corrupt, and children of wrath, as others; "That which is born
of the flesh is flesh"; and they must be born again, or they cannot see,
possess, and enjoy the kingdom of God, or have a right to be admitted into the
church of God now, nor will they enter into the kingdom of God, into heaven
hereafter, unless born again; their first and carnal birth neither entitles them
to the kingdom of God on earth, nor to the kingdom of God in heaven, be it taken
in either sense; for the baptism of such there is neither precept nor precedent
in the word of God.

(1.) First, there is no
precept for it; not the words of Christ in Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said,
Suffer little children", etc. For,

a. Let the words be said to
or of whom they may, they are not in the form of a precept, but of a permission
or grant, and signify not what was enjoined as necessary, but what was allowed
of, or which might be; "Suffer little children", etc.

b. These children do not
appear to be newborn babes. The words used by the evangelists, neither paidia nor brefh, do not always
signify such; but are sometimes used or such who are capable of going alone, and
of being instructed, and of understanding the scriptures, and even of one of
twelve years of age (Matthew 18:2; 2 Tim. 3:15; Mark 5:39,42). Nor is it
probable that children just born should be had abroad; besides, these were such
as Christ called unto him (Luke 18:16), and were capable of coming to him of
themselves, as is supposed in the words themselves; nor is their being brought
unto him, nor his taking them in his arms, any objection to this, since the same
are said of such who could walk of themselves (Matthew 12:22 17:16; Mark 9:36).

c. It cannot be said whose
children these were; whether they belonged to those who brought them, or to
others; and whether the children of believers, and of baptized persons, or not;
and if of unbelievers, and of unbaptized persons, the Paedobaptists themselves
will not allow such children to be baptized.

d. It is certain they were
not brought to Christ to be baptized by him, but for other purposes; the
evangelist Matthew (Matthew 19:13,15), says, they were brought to him that he
"should put his hands upon them, and pray", as he did, that is, for a
blessing on them; as it was usual with the Jews to do (Gen. 48:14,15). The
evangelists Mark and Luke say, they were brought to him, "that he would
touch them", as he did when he healed persons of diseases; and probably
these children were diseased, and were brought to him to be cured; however, they
were not brought to be baptized by Christ; for Christ baptized none at all,
adult or infants; had they that brought them this in view, they would have
brought them to the disciples of Christ, and not to Christ, whom they might have
seen administering the ordinance of baptism, but not Christ: however, it is
certain they were not baptized by Christ, since he never baptized any.

e. This passage rather
concludes against Paedobaptism than for it, and shows that this practice had not
obtained among the Jews, and had not been used by John, by Christ, and his
disciples; for then the apostles would scarcely have forbid the bringing of
these children, since they might readily suppose they were brought to be
baptized; but knowing of no such usage in the nation, whether of them that did
or did not believe in Christ, they forbade them; and Christ's silence about
this matter, when he had such an opportunity of speaking of it to his disciples,
and enjoining it, had it been his will, does not look very favorably upon this
practice.

f. The reason given for
suffering little children to come to Christ, "for of such is the kingdom of
heaven", is to be understood in a figurative and metaphorical sense; of
such who are comparable to children for modesty, meekness, and humility, and for
freedom from rancor, malice, ambition, and pride (see Matthew 18:2); and which
sense is given into by Origen,[4] among the
ancients, and by Calvin and Brugensis, among the moderns. Nor does the
commission in Matthew 28:19 contain in it any precept for infant baptism;
"Go, teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. For,

(a.) The baptism of all
nations is not here commanded; but the baptism only of such who are taught; for
the antecedent to the relative "them", cannot be "all
nations"; since the words pantataeynh, "all
nations", are of the neuter gender; whereas autouv,
"them", is of the masculine; but mayeutav,
disciples, is supposed and understood in the word mayhteusate,
"teach", or "make disciples"; now the command is, that such
who are first taught or made disciples by teaching under the ministry of the
word, by the Spirit of God succeeding it, should be baptized.

(b.) If infants, as a part
of all nations, and because they are such, are to be baptized, then the infants
of Heathens, Turks, and Jews, ought to be baptized, since they are a part, and a
large part, of all nations; as well as the children of Christians, or believers,
which are but a small part; yea, every individual person in the world ought to
be baptized, all adult persons, heathens as well as Christians; even the most
profligate and abandoned of mankind, since they are a part of all nations.

(c.) Disciples of Christ,
and such who have learned to know Christ, and the way of salvation by him, and
to know themselves, and their need of him, are characters that cannot agree with
infants; and if disciples and learners are the same, as is said, they must be
learners or they cannot be disciples; and they cannot be learners of Christ
unless they have learnt something of him; and according to this notion of
disciples and learners, they ought to learn something of him before they are
baptized in his name; but what can an infant be taught to learn of Christ? to
prove infants disciples that text is usually brought (Acts 15:10), which falls
greatly short of proving it; for infants are not designed in that place, nor
included in the character; for though the Judaizing teachers would have had the
Gentiles, and their infants too, circumcised; yet it was not circumcision, the
thing itself, which is meant by the intolerable yoke; for that was what the
Jewish fathers, and their children, were able to bear, and had bore in ages
past; but it was the doctrine of the necessity of that, and other rites of
Moses, to salvation; and obliged to the keeping of the whole law, and was in
tolerable; and which doctrine could not be imposed upon infants, but upon adult
persons only.

(d.) These two acts,
teaching, or making disciples, and baptizing, are not to be confounded, but are
two distinct acts, and the one is previous and absolutely necessary to the
other: Men must first be made disciples, and then baptized; so Jerom[5] long ago understood the commission; on which he
observes, "First they teach all nations, then dip those that are taught in
water; for it cannot be that the body should receive the sacrament of baptism,
unless the soul has before received the truth of faith." And so says
Athanasius,[6] "Wherefore the Saviour
does not simply command to baptize; but first says, teach, and then baptize
thus, "In the name of the Father, nd of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost"; that faith might come of teaching, and baptism be perfected."

(2.) Secondly, there is no
precedent for the baptism of infants in the word of God. Among the vast numbers
who flocked to John's baptism from all parts, we read of no infants that were
brought with them for that purpose, or that were baptized by him. And though
more were baptized by Christ than by John, that is, the apostles of Christ, at
his order, yet no mention of any infant baptized by them; and though three
thousand persons were baptized at once, yet not an infant among them: and in all
the accounts of baptism in the Acts of the Apostles in different parts of the
world, not a single instance of infant baptism is given. There is, indeed,
mention made of households, or families, baptized; and which the "paedobaptists"
endeavor to avail themselves of; but they ought to be sure there were infants in
these families, and that they were baptized, or else they must baptize them on a
very precarious foundation; since there are families who have no infants in
them, and how can they be sure there were any in these the scriptures speak of?
and it lies upon them to prove there were infants in them, and that these
infants were baptized; or the allegation of these instances is to no purpose. We
are able to prove there are many things in the account of these families, which
are inconsistent with infants, and which make it at least probable there were
none in them, and which also make it certain that those who were baptized were
adult persons and believers in Christ. There are but three families, if so many,
who are usually instanced in: the first is that of Lydia and her household (Acts
16:14,15), but in what state of life she was is not certain, whether single or
married, whether maid widow or wife; and if married, whether she then had any
children, or ever had any; and if she had, and they living, whether they were
infants or adult; and if infants, it does not seem probable that she should
bring them along with her from her native place, Thyatira to Philippi, where she
seems to have been upon business, and so had hired a house during her stay
there; wherefore her household seems to have consisted of menial servants she
brought along with her, to assist her in her business: and certain it is, that
those the apostles found in her house, when they entered into it, after they
came out of prison, were such as are called "brethren", and were
capable of being "comforted" by them; which supposes them to have been
in some distress and trouble, and needed comfort. The second instance is of the
jailor and his household, which consisted of adult persons, and of such only;
for the apostles spoke the word of the Lord to "all" that were in his
house, which they were capable of hearing, and it seems of understanding; for
not only he "rejoiced" at the good news of salvation by Christ, but
"all" in his house hearing it, rejoiced likewise; which joy of theirs
was the joy of faith; for he and they were believers in God, Father, Son, and
Spirit; for it is expressly said, that he "rejoiced, believing in God with
all his house"; so that they were not only hearers of the word, but
rejoiced at it, and believed in it, and in God the Saviour, revealed in it to
them (Acts 16:32-34), all which shows them to be adult persons, and not infants.
The third instance, if distinct from the household of the jailor, which some
take to be the same, is that of Stephanus; but be it a different one, it is
certain it consisted of adult persons, believers in Christ, and very useful in
the service of religion; they were the first fruits of Achaia, the first
converts in those parts, and who "addicted themselves to the ministry of
the saints" (1 Cor. 16:15), which, whether understood of the ministry of
the word to the saints, which they gave themselves up unto; or of the
ministration of their substance to the poor, which they cheerfully communicated,
they must be adult persons, and not infants. There being then neither precept
nor precedent in the word of God for infant baptism, it may be justly condemned
as unscriptural and unwarrantable.

(3.) Thirdly, nor is infant
baptism to be concluded from any things or passages recorded either in the Old
or in the New Testament. Baptism being an ordinance peculiar to the New
Testament, it cannot be expected there should be any directions about the
observance of it in the Old Testament; and whatever may be gathered relative to
it, from typical and figurative baptisms, under the former dispensation, there
is nothing from thence in favor of infant baptism, and to countenance that; and
yet we are often referred thereunto for the original and foundation of it, but
to no purpose.

a. It is not fact, as has
been asserted,[7] that the "infants of
believers" have, with their parents, been taken into covenant with God in
the former ages of the church, if by it is meant the covenant of grace; the
first covenant made with man, was that of works, made with Adam, and which
indeed included all his posterity, to whom he stood as a federal head, as no one
ever since did to his natural offspring; in whom they all sinned, were
condemned, and died; which surely cannot be pleaded in favor of the infants of
believers! after the fall, the covenant of grace, and the way of life and
salvation by Christ, were revealed to Adam and Eve, personally, as interested
therein; but not to their natural seed and posterity, and as interested therein;
for then all mankind must be taken into the covenant of grace, and so nothing
peculiar to the infants of believers; of which not the least syllable is
mentioned throughout the whole age of the church, reaching from Adam to Noah.
The next covenant we read of, is that made with Noah, which was not made with
him and his immediate offspring only; nor were any taken into it as infants of
believers, nor had they any sacrament or rite as a token of it, and of God being
their God in a peculiar relation. Surely this will not be said of Ham, one of
the immediate sons of Noah. That covenant was made with Noah, and with all
mankind to the end of the world, and even with every living creature, the beasts
of the field, promising security from an universal deluge, as long as the world
should stand; and so had nothing in it peculiar to the infants of believers. The
next covenant is that made with Abraham and his seed, on which great stress is
laid (Gen. 17:10-14), and this is said[8]
to be "the grand turning point on which the issue of the controversy very
much depends; and that if Abraham's covenant, which included his infant
children, and gave them a right to circumcision, was not the covenant of grace;
then it is confessed, that the "main ground" is taken away, on which
"the right of infants to baptism" is asserted; and consequently the
principal arguments in support of the doctrine are overturned." Now that
this covenant was not the pure covenant of grace, in distinction from the
covenant of works, but rather a covenant of works, will soon be proved; and if
so, then the main ground of infant's baptism is taken away, and its principal
arguments in support of it overturned: and that it is not the covenant of grace
is clear,

(a.) From its being never
so called, nor by any name which shows it to be such; but "the covenant of
circumcision" (Acts 7:8). Now nothing is more opposite to one another than
circumcision and grace; circumcision is a work of the law, which they that
sought to be justified by fell from grace (Gal. 5:2-4). Nor can this covenant be
the same we are now under, which is a new covenant, or a new administration of
the covenant of grace, since it is abolished, and no more in being and force.

(b.) It appears to be a
covenant of works, and not of grace; since it was to be kept by men, under a
severe penalty. Abraham was to keep it, and his seed after him; something was to
be done by them, their flesh to be circumcised, and a penalty was annexed, in
case of disobedience or neglect; such a soul was to be cut off from his people:
all which shows it to be, not a covenant of grace, but of works.

(c.) It is plain, it was a
covenant that might be broken; of the uncircumcised it is said, "He hath
broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:14), whereas the covenant of grace cannot be
broken; God will not break it, and men cannot; it is ordered in all things, and
sure, and is more immovable than hills and mountains (Ps. 89:34).

(d.) It is certain it had
things in it of a civil and temporal nature; as a multiplication of Abraham's
natural seed, and a race of kings from him; a promise of his being the Father of
many nations, and a possession of the land of Canaan by his seed: things that
can have no place in the pure covenant of grace and have nothing to do with
that, any more than the change of his name from Abram to Abraham.

(e.) There were some
persons included in it, who cannot be thought to belong to the covenant of
grace; as Ishmael, not in the same covenant with Isaac, and a profane Esau: and
on the other hand, there were some who were living when this covenant of
circumcision was made, and yet were left out of it; who nevertheless,
undoubtedly, were in the covenant of grace; as Shem, Arphaxad, Melchizedek, Lot,
and others; wherefore this can never be the pure covenant of grace.

(f.) Nor is
this covenant the same with what is referred to in Galatians 3:17 said to be
"confirmed of God in Christ", which could not be disannulled by the
law four hundred and thirty years after; the distance of time between them does
not agree, but falls short of the apostle's date twenty four years; and
therefore must not refer to the covenant of circumcision, but to some other
covenant and time of making it; even to an exhibition and manifestation of the
covenant of grace to Abraham, about the time of his call out of Chaldea (Gen.
12:3).

(g.) The covenant of grace
was made with Christ, as the federal head of the elect in him, and that from
everlasting, and who is the only head of that covenant, and of the covenant
ones: if the covenant of grace was made with Abraham, as the head of his natural
and spiritual seed, Jews and Gentiles; there must be two heads of the covenant
of grace, contrary to the nature of such a covenant, and the whole current of
scripture; yea, the covenant of grace, as it concerns the spiritual seed of
Abraham, and spiritual blessings for them; it, and the promises of it, were made
to Christ (Gal. 3:16). No mere man is capable of covenanting with God; the
covenant of grace is not made with any single man; and much less with him on the
behalf of others: whenever we read of it as made with a particular person or
persons, it is always to be understood of the manifestation and application of
it, and of its blessings and promises to them.

(h.) Allowing Abraham's
covenant to be a peculiar one, and of a mixed kind, containing promises of
temporal things to him, and his natural seed, and of spiritual things to his
spiritual seed; or rather, that there was at the same time when the covenant of
circumcision was given to Abraham and his natural seed, a fresh manifestation of
the covenant of grace made with him and his spiritual seed in Christ. That the
temporal blessings of it belonged to his natural seed, is no question; but that
the spiritual blessings belong to all Abraham's seed, after the flesh, and to
all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, must be denied: if the covenant of
grace was made with all Abraham's seed according to the flesh, then it was
made with his more immediate offspring, with a mocking, persecuting Ishmael, and
with a profane Esau, and with all his remote posterity; with them who believed
not, and whose carcasses fell in the wilderness; with the ten tribes who
revolted from the pure worship of God; with the Jews in Isaiah's time, a seed
of evildoers, whose rulers are called the rulers of Sodom, and the people the
people of Gomorrah; with the scribes and Pharisees, that wicked and adulterous
generation in the times of Christ: but what serious, thoughtful man, who knows
anything of the covenant of grace, can admit of this? (see Rom. 9:6,7). It is
only a remnant, according to the election of grace, who are in this covenant;
and if all the natural seed of Abraham are not in this covenant, it can scarcely
be thought that all the natural seed of believing Gentiles are; it is only some
of the one and some of the other, who are in the covenant of grace; and this
cannot be known until they believe, when they appear to be Abraham's spiritual
seed; and it must be right to put off their claim to any supposed privilege
arising from covenant interest, until it is plain they have one; if all the
natural seed of Abraham, as such, and all the natural seed of believing
Gentiles, as such, are in the covenant of grace; since all they that are in it,
and none but they are in it, who are the chosen of God, the redeemed of the
Lamb, and will be called by grace, and sanctified, and persevere in faith and
holiness, and be eternally glorified; then the natural seed of Abraham, and of
believing Gentiles, must be all chosen to grace and glory, and be redeemed by
the blood of Christ from sin, law, hell, and death; they must all have new
hearts and spirits given them, and the fear of God put into their hearts; must
be effectually called, their sins forgiven them, their persons justified by the
righteousness of Christ, and they persevere in grace to the end, and be for ever
glorified; (see Jer. 31:33,34; 32:40; Ezek. 36:25-27; Rom. 8:30). But who will
venture to assert all this of the one, or of the other? And after all,

(i.) If their covenant
interest could be ascertained, that gives no right to an ordinance, without a
positive order and direction from God. It gave no right to circumcision
formerly; for on the one hand there were persons living when that ordinance was
appointed, who had an undoubted interest in the covenant of grace; as Shem,
Arphaxad, Lot, and others, on whom circumcision was not enjoined, and they had
no right to use it: on the other hand, there have been many of whom it cannot be
said they were in the covenant of grace, and yet were obliged to it. And so
covenant interest gives no right to baptism; could it be proved, as it cannot,
that all the infant seed of believers, as such, are in the covenant of grace, it
would give them no right to baptism, without a command for it; the reason is,
because a person may be in covenant, and as yet not have the prerequisite to an
ordinance, even faith in Christ, and a profession of it, which are necessary
both to baptism and the Lord's Supper; and if covenant interest gives a right
to the one, it would to the other.

(j.) Notwithstanding all
this attention made about Abraham's covenant (Gen. 17:1-14), it was not made
with him and his infant seed; but with him and his adult offspring; it was they
in all after ages to the coming of Christ, whether believers or unbelievers, who
were enjoined to circumcise their infant seed, and not all of them, only their
males: it was not made with Abraham's infant seed, who could not circumcise
themselves, but their parents were by this covenant obliged to circumcise them;
yea, others, who were not Abraham's natural seed, were obliged to it; "He
that is eight days old shalt be circumcised among you, which is NOT OF THY
SEED" (Gen. 17:12). Which leads on to observe,

b. That nothing can be
concluded from the circumcision of Jewish infants, to the baptism of the infants
of believing Gentiles: had there been a like command for the baptism of the
infants of believing Gentiles, under the New Testament, as there was for the
circumcision of Jewish infants under the Old, the thing would not have admitted
of any dispute; but nothing of this kind appears. For,

(a.) It is not clear that
even Jewish infants were admitted into covenant by the rite of circumcision;
from whence it is pleaded, that the infants of believers are admitted into it by
baptism; for Abraham's female seed were taken into the covenant made with him,
as well as his male seed, but not by any "visible rite" or ceremony;
nor were his male seed admitted by any such rite; not by circumcision, for they
were not to be circumcised until the eighth day; to have circumcised them sooner
would have been criminal; and that they were in covenant from their birth, I
presume, will not be denied; as it was a national covenant, so early they were
in it; the Israelites, with their infants at Horeb, had not been circumcised;
nor were they when they entered into covenant with the Lord their God
(Deut.29:10-15).

(b.) Circumcision was no
seal of the covenant of grace under the former dispensation; nor is baptism a
seal of it under the present: had circumcision been a seal of it, the covenant
of grace must have been without one from Adam to Abraham: it is called a sign or
token, but not a seal; it was a sign or mark in the flesh of Abraham's natural
seed, a typical sign of the pollution of human nature, and of the inward
circumcision of the heart; but no seal, confirming any spiritual blessing of the
covenant of grace to those who had this mark or sign; it is indeed called,
"a seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:11), but not a seal to
Abraham's natural seed of their interest in that righteousness, but only to
Abraham himself; it was a seal to him, a confirming sign, assuring him, that the
righteousness of faith, which he had before he was circumcised, should come upon
the uncircumcised believing Gentiles; and therefore it was continued on his
natural offspring, until that righteousness was preached unto, received by, and
imputed to believing Gentiles.

(c.) Nor did baptism
succeed circumcision; there is no agreement between the one and the other; not
in the subjects, to whom they were administered; the use of the one and the
other is not the same; and the manner of administering them different; baptism
being administered to Jews and Gentiles, to male and female, and to adult
persons only: not so circumcision; the use of circumcision was to distinguish
the natural seed of Abraham from others; baptism is the badge of the spiritual
seed of Christ, and the answer of a good conscience towards God; and represents
the sufferings, burial, and resurrection of Christ; the one is by blood, the
other by water; and ordinances so much differing in their subjects, use, and
administration; the one can never be thought to come in the room and place of
the other. Besides, baptism was in use and force before circumcision was
abolished, which was not until the death of Christ; whereas, the doctrine of
baptism was preached, and the ordinance itself administered, some years before
that; now that which was in force before another is out of date, can never with
any propriety be said to succeed, or come in the room of that other. Besides, if
this was the case, as circumcision gave a right to the Passover, so would
baptism to the Lord's Supper; which yet is not admitted. Now as there is
nothing to be gathered out of the Old Testament to countenance infant baptism,
so neither are there any passages in the New, which can be supported in favor of
it.

i.

Not the text in Acts 2:39. "The promise is unto you and to your
children", etc. It is pretended, that this refers to the covenant made with
Abraham, and to a covenant promise made to him, giving his infant children a
right to the ordinance of circumcision; and is urged as a reason with the Jews,
why they and their children ought to be baptized; and with the Gentiles, why
they and theirs should be also, when called into a church state. But,

(i.)

There is not the least mention made in the text of Abraham's
covenant, or of any promise made to him, giving his infant seed a right to
circumcision, and still less to baptism; nor is there the least syllable of
infant baptism, nor any hint of it, from whence it can be concluded; nor by
"children" are infants designed, but the posterity of the Jews, who
are frequently so called in scripture, though grown up; and unless it be so
understood in many places, strange interpretations must be given of them;
wherefore the argument from hence for "paedobaptism" is given up by
some learned men, as Dr. Hammond and others, as inconclusive.

(ii.)

The promise here, be it what it may, is not observed as giving a right
or claim to any ordinance; but as an encouraging motive to persons in distress,
under a sense of sin, to repent of it, and declare their repentance, and yield a
voluntary subjection to the ordinance of baptism; when they might hope that
remission of sins would be applied to them, and they should receive a larger
measure of the grace of the Spirit; wherefore repentance and baptism are urged
in order to the enjoyment of the promise; and consequently must be understood of
adult persons, who only are capable of repentance, and of a voluntary subjection
to baptism.

(iii.)

The promise is no other than the promise of life and salvation by
Christ, and of remission of sins by his blood, and of an increase of grace from
his Spirit; and whereas the persons addressed had imprecated the guilt of the
blood of Christ, they had shed upon their posterity, as well as on themselves,
which distressed them; they are told, for their relief, that the same promise
would be made good to their posterity also, provided they did as they were
directed to do; and even to all the Jews afar off, in distant countries and
future ages, who should look on Christ and mourn, repent and believe, and be
baptized: and seeing the Gentiles are sometimes described as those "afar
of", the promise may be thought to reach to them who should be called by
grace, repent, believe, and be baptized also; but no mention is made of their
children; and had they been mentioned, the limiting clause, "Even as many
as the Lord our God shall call", plainly points at and describes the
persons intended, whether Jews or Gentiles, effectually called by grace, who are
encouraged by the motive in the promise to profess repentance, and submit to
baptism; which can only be understood of adult persons, and not of infants.

ii.

Nor Romans 11:16, etc. "If the first fruits be holy", etc.
For, (i.) By the first fruits, and lump, and by the root and branches,
are not meant Abraham and his posterity, or natural seed, as such; but the first
among the Jews who believed in Christ, and laid the first foundation of a gospel
church state, and were first incorporated into it; Who being holy, were a pledge
of the future conversion and holiness of that people in the latter day.

(ii.)

Nor by the good olive tree, after mentioned, is meant the Jewish church
state; which was abolished by Christ, with all the peculiar ordinances of it;
and the believing Gentiles were never engrafted into it; the axe has been laid
to the root of that old Jewish stock, and it is entirely cut down, and no
engrafture is made upon it. But,

(iii.)

By it is meant the gospel church state, in its first foundation,
consisting of Jews that believed, out of which were left the Jews who believed
not in Christ, and who are the branches broken off; into which church state the
Gentiles were received and engrafted; which engrafture, or coalition, was first
made at Antioch, when and hereafter the Gentiles partook of the root and fatness
of the olive tree, enjoyed the same privileges, communicated in the same
ordinances, and were satisfied with the goodness and fatness of the house of
God; and this gospel church may be truly called, by the converted Jews in the
latter day, their "own olive tree", into which they will be engrafted;
since the first gospel church was set up at Jerusalem, and gathered out of the
Jews; and so in other places, the first gospel churches consisted of Jews, the
first fruits of those converted ones. From the whole it appears, that there is
not the least syllable about baptism, much less of infant baptism, in the
passage; nor can anything be concluded from hence in favor of it.

iii.

Nor from 1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband;
else were your children unclean, but now are they holy"; which is by some
understood of a federal holiness, giving a claim to covenant privileges, and so
to baptism. But,

(i.)

It should be told what these covenant privileges are; since, as we have
seen, covenant interest gives no right to any ordinance, without divine
direction; nor is baptism a seal of the covenant: it should be told what this
covenant holiness is, whether imaginary or real; by some it is called
"reputed", and is distinguished from internal holiness, which is
rejected from being the sense of the text; but such holiness can never qualify
persons for a New Testament ordinance; nor as the covenant of grace any such
holiness belonging to it; that provides, by way of promise, real holiness,
signified by putting the laws of God in the heart, by giving new hearts and new
spirits, and by cleansing from all impurity, and designs real, internal
holiness, shown in an holy conversation; and such who appear to have that, have
an undoubted right to the ordinance of baptism, since they have received the
Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification (Acts 10:47). But this cannot be meant in
the text, seeing,

(ii.)

It is such a holiness as heathens may have; unbelieving husbands and
wives are said to have it, in virtue of their relation to believing wives and
husbands, and which is prior to the holiness of their children, and on which
theirs depends; but surely such will not be allowed to have federal holiness,
and yet it must be of the same kind with their children; if the holiness of the
children is a federal holiness, that of the unbelieving parent must be so too,
from whence is the holiness of the children.

(iii.)

If children, by virtue of this holiness, have claim to baptism, then
much more their unbelieving parents, since they are sanctified before them, by
their believing yoke fellows, and are as near to them as their children; and if
the holiness of the one gives a right to baptism, why not the holiness of the
other? and yet the one are baptized, and the other not, though sanctified, and
whose holiness is the more near; for the holiness spoken of, be it what it may,
is derived from both parents, believing and unbelieving; yea, the holiness of
the children depends upon the sanctification of the unbelieving parent; for if
the unbeliever is not sanctified, the children are unclean, and not holy. But,

(iv.)

These words are to be understood of matrimonial holiness, even of the
very act of marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is frequently
expressed by being sanctified; the word שרק
to "sanctify", is used in innumerable places in the Jewish writings,[9] , to "espouse"; and in the same sense
the apostle uses the word agiazw here, and the words
may be rendered, "the unbelieving husband is espoused", or married,
"to the wife"; or rather, "has been espoused", for it
relates to the act of marriage past, as valid; "and the unbelieving wife
has been espoused to the husband"; the preposition en,
translated "by", should be rendered "to", as it is in the
very next verse; "God hath called us eneirhnh, to peace"; the apostle's inference from it
is, "else were your children unclean", illegitimate, if their parents
were not lawfully espoused and married to each other; "but now are they
holy", a holy and legitimate seed, as in Ezra 9:2 (see Mal. 2:15), and no
other sense can be put upon the words, than of a legitimate marriage and
offspring; nothing else will suit with the case proposed to the apostle, and
with his answer to it, and reasoning about it; and which sense has been allowed
by many learned interpreters, ancient and modern; as Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus,
Camerarius, Musculus, and others. There are some objections made to the practice
of adult baptism, which are of little force, and to which an answer may easily
be returned.

i.

That though it may be allowed that adult persons, such as repent and
believe, are the subjects of baptism, yet it is nowhere said, that they are the
only ones: but if no others can be named as baptized, and the descriptive
characters given in scripture of baptized persons are such as can
"only" agree with adult, and not with infants; then it may be
reasonably concluded, that the former "only" are the proper subjects
of baptism.

ii.

It is objected to our practice of baptizing the adult offspring of
Christians, that no scriptural instance of such a practice can be given; and it
is demanded of us to give an instance agreeable to our practice; since the first
persons baptized were such as were converted either from Judaism or from
heathenism, and about the baptism of such adult, they say, there is no
controversy. But our practice is not at all concerned with the parents of the
persons baptized by us, whether they be Christians, Jews, Turks, or Pagans; but
with the persons themselves, whether they are believers in Christ or not; if
they are the adult offspring of Christians, yet unbaptized, it is no objection
to us: and if they are not, it is no bar in the way of admitting them to
baptism, if they themselves are believers; many, and it may be the greater part
of such baptized by us are the adult offspring of those who, without breach of
charity, cannot be considered as Christians. As for the first persons that were
baptized, they were neither proselytes from Judaism nor from Heathenism; but the
offspring of Christians, of such that believed in the Messiah; the saints before
the coming of Christ, and at his coming, were as good Christians as any that
have lived since; so that those good men who lived before Abraham, as far back
as to the first man, and those that lived after him, even to the coming of
Christ, Eusebius[10] observes, that if any
should affirm them to be Christians, though not in name, yet in reality, he
would not say amiss. Judaism, at the time of Christ's coming, was the same
with Christianity, and not in opposition to it; so that there was no such thing
as conversion from Judaism to Christianity. Zachariah and Elizabeth, whose
offspring John the first baptizer was, and Mary, the mother of our Lord, who was
baptized by John, when adult, were as good Christians, and as strong believers
in Jesus, as the Messiah, as soon as born, and even when in the womb of the
Virgin, as have been since; and these surely must be allowed to be the adult
offspring of Christians; such were the apostles of Christ, and the first
followers of him, who were the adult offspring of such who believed in the
Messiah, and embraced him upon the first notice of him, and cannot be said to be
converted from Judaism to Christianity; Judaism not existing until the
opposition to Jesus being the Messiah became general and national; after that,
indeed, those of the Jewish nation who believed in Christ, may be said to be
proselytes from Judaism to Christianity, as the apostle Paul and others: and so
converts made by the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, were proselytes
from heathenism to Christianity; but then it is unreasonable to demand of us
instances of the adult offspring of such being baptized, and added to the
churches; since the scripture history of the first churches contained in the
Acts of the Apostles, only gives an account of the first planting of these
churches, and of the baptism of those of which they first consisted; but not of
the additions of members to them in later times; wherefore to give instances of
those who were born of them, and brought up by them, as baptized in adult years,
cannot reasonably be required of us: but on the other hand, if infant children
were admitted to baptism in these times, upon the faith and baptism of their
parents, and their becoming Christians; it is strange, exceeding strange, that
among the many thousands baptized in Jerusalem, Samaria, Corinth, and other
places, that there should be no one instance of any of them bringing their
children with them to be baptized, and claiming the privilege of baptism for
them upon their own faith; nor of their doing this in any short time after. This
is a case that required no length of time, and yet not a single instance can be
produced.

iii.

It is objected, that no time can be assigned when infants were cast out
of covenant, or cut off from the seal of it. If by the covenant is meant the
covenant of grace, it should be first proved that they are in it, as the natural
seed of believers, which cannot be done; and when that is, it is time enough to
talk of their being cast out, when and how. If by it is meant Abraham's
covenant, the covenant of circumcision, the answer is the cutting off was when
circumcision ceased to be an ordinance of God, which was at the death of Christ:
if by it is meant the national covenant of the Jews, the ejection of Jewish
parents, with their children, was when God wrote a "Loammi" upon that
people, as a body politic and ecclesiastic; when he broke his covenant with
them, signified by breaking his two staffs, beauty and bands.

iv.

A clamorous outcry is made against us, as abridging the privileges of
infants, by denying baptism to them; making them to be lesser under the gospel
dispensation than under the law, and the gospel dispensation less glorious. But
as to the gospel dispensation, it is the more glorious for infants being left
out of its church state; that is, for its being not national and carnal, as
before; but congregational and spiritual; consisting not of infants, without
understanding, but of rational and spiritual men, believers in Christ; and these
not of a single country, as Judea, but in all parts of the world: and as for
infants, their privileges now are many and better, who are eased from the
painful rite of circumcision; it is a rich mercy, and a glorious privilege of
the gospel, that the believing Jews and their children are delivered from it;
and that the Gentiles and theirs are not obliged to it; which would have bound
them over to fulfil the whole law: to which may be added, that being born of
Christian parents, and having a Christian education, and of having opportunities
of hearing the gospel, as they grow up; and that not in one country only, but in
many; are greater privileges than the Jewish children had under the former
dispensation.

v.

It is objected, that there are no more express commands in scripture
for keeping the first day of the week as a sabbath; nor for women partaking of
the Lord's Supper, and other things, than for the baptism of infants. As for
the first, though there is no express precept for the observance of it, yet
there are precedents of its being observed for religious services (Acts 20:7; 1
Cor. 16:1,2), and though we have no example of infant baptism, yet if there were
scriptural precedents of it, we should think ourselves obliged to follow them.
As for women's right to partake of the Lord's Supper, we have sufficient
proof of it; since these were baptized as well as men; and having a right to one
ordinance, had to another, and were members of the first church, communicated
with it, and women, as well as

men, were added to it (Acts
8:12; 1:14; 5:1,14) we have a precept for it: "Let a man", anyrwpov, a word of the common gender, and signifies both
man and woman, "examine him or herself, and so let him or her eat" (1
Cor. 11:29; see Gal. 3:28); and we have also examples of it in Mary the mother
of our Lord, and other women, who, with the disciples, constituted the gospel
church at Jerusalem; and as they continued with one accord in the apostles'
doctrine and in prayer, so in fellowship and in breaking of bread; let the same
proof be given of the baptism of infants, and it will be admitted.

vi.

Antiquity is urged in favor of infant baptism; it is pretended that
this is a tradition of the church received from the apostles; though of this no
other proof is given, but the testimony of Origen, none before that; and this is
taken, not from any of his genuine Greek writings, only from some Latin
translations, confessedly interpolated, and so corrupted, that it is owned, one
is at a loss to find Origen in Origen. No mention is made of this practice in
the first two centuries, no instance given of it until the third, when
Tertullian is the first who spoke of it, and at the same time spoke against it.[11] And could it be carried up higher, it would be
of no force, unless it could be proved from the sacred scriptures, to which only
we appeal, and by which the thing in debate is to be judged and determined. We
know that innovations and corruptions very early obtained, and even in the times
of the apostles; and what is pretended to be near those times, is the more to be
suspected as the traditions of the false apostles;[12]
the antiquity of a custom is no proof of the truth and genuineness of it;[13] "The customs the people are vain"
(Jer. 10:3). I proceed to consider,

IV. Fourthly, the way and
manner of baptizing; and to prove, that it is by immersion, plunging the body in
water, and covering it with it. Custom, and the common use of writing in this
controversy, have so far prevailed, that for the most part immersion is usually
called the "mode" of baptism; whereas it is properly baptism itself;
to say that immersion or dipping is the mode of baptism, is the same thing as to
say, that dipping is the mode of dipping; for as Sir John Floyer[14] observes "Immersion is no circumstance, but
"the very act of baptism", used by our Saviour and his disciples, in
the institution of baptism." And Calvin expressly says,[15] "The word "baptizing" signifies
to plunge; and it is certain, that the rite of plunging was used by the ancient
churches." And as for sprinkling, that cannot, with any propriety, be
called a mode of baptism; it would be just such, good sense as to say,
sprinkling is the mode of dipping, since baptism and dipping are the same; hence
the learned Selden,[16] who in the former
part of his life, might have seen infants dipped in fonts, but lived to see
immersion much disused, had reason to say, "In England, of late years, I
ever thought the parson "baptized his own fingers" rather than the
child," because he dipped the one, and sprinkled the other. That baptism is
immersion, or the dipping of a person in water, and covering him with it is to
be proved,

1. From the proper and
primary signification of the word baptizw,
"baptize", which in its first and primary sense, signifies to
"dip or plunge into"; and so it is rendered by our best
lexicographers, "mergo", "immergo", "dip or plunge
into." And in a secondary and consequential sense, "abluo, lavo",
"wash", because what is dipped is washed, there being no proper
washing but by dipping; but never "perfundo or aspergo", "pour or
sprinkle"; so the lexicon published by Constantine, Budaeus, etc. and those
of Hadrian Junius, Plantinus, Scapula, Stephens, Schrevelius, Stockius, and
others; besides a great number of critics; as Beza, Casanbon, Witsius, etc.
which might be produced. By whose united testimonies the thing is out of
question. Had our translators, instead of adopting the Greek word baptize in all
places where the ordinance of baptism is made mention of, truly translated it,
and not have left it untranslated, as they have, the controversy about the
manner of baptizing would have been at an end, or rather have been prevented;
had they used the word dip, instead of baptize, as they should have done, there
would have been no room for a question about it.

2. That baptism was
performed by immersion, appears by the places chosen for the administration of
it; as the river Jordan by John, where he baptized many, and where our Lord
himself was baptized by him (Matthew 3:6,13,16), but why should he choose the
river to baptize in, and baptize in it, if he did not administer the ordinance
by immersion? had it been done any other way, there was no occasion for any
confluence of water, much less a river;[17]
a basin of water would have sufficed. John also, it is said, "was baptizing
in Aenon, near Salim, because there was much water" (John 3:23), which was
convenient for baptism, for which this reason is given; and not for convenience
for drink for men and their cattle, which is not expressed nor implied; from
whence we may gather, as Calvin on the text does, "That baptism was
performed by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body under water;" and
so Piscator, Aretius, Grotius, and others on the same passage.

3. That this was the way in
which it was anciently administered, is clear from various instances of baptism
recorded in scripture, and the circumstances attending them; as that of our
Lord, of whom it is said, "That when he was baptized he went up straightway
out of the water", which supposes he had been in it; and so Piscator infers
from his going up out of it, that therefore he went down into it, and was
baptized in the river itself; of which going down there would have been no need,
had the ordinance been administered to him in another way, as by sprinkling or
pouring a little water on his head, he and John standing in the midst of the
river, as the painter and engraver ridiculously describe it: and certain it is,
he was then baptized in Jordan; the evangelist Mark says "into Jordan"
(Mark 1:9), not at the banks of Jordan, but into the waters of it; for which
reason he went into it, and when baptized, "came up out" of it, not
"from" it, but "out" of it; apo
and ex, signifying the same, as in Luke 4:35,41. So
the preposition is used in the Septuagint version of Psalm 40:2 ex and apo are "aequipollent", as several
lexicographers from Xenophon observe. The baptism of the eunuch is another
instance of baptism by immersion; when he and Philip were "come unto a
certain water", to the water side, which destroys a little piece of
criticism, as if their going into the water, after expressed, was no other than
going to the brink of the water, to the water side, whereas they were come to
that before; and baptism being agreed upon, "they went down both into the
water", both Philip and the eunuch, "and he baptized him; and when
they were come up out of the water", etc. Now we do not reason merely from
the circumstances of "going down into, and coming up out of the
water"; we know that persons may go down into water, and come up out of it,
and never be immersed in it; but when it is expressly said, upon these persons
going down into the water, that Philip baptized, or dipped, the eunuch; and when
this was done, that both came up out of it, these circumstances strongly
corroborate, without the explanation of the word "baptized", that it
was performed by immersion; for these circumstances cannot agree with any other
way of administering it but that; for a man can hardly be thought to be in his
senses who can imagine that Philip went down with the eunuch into the water to
sprinkle or pour a little water on him, and then gravely come out of it; hence,
as the above learned commentator, Calvin, on the text says, "Here we
plainly see what was the manner of baptizing with the ancients, for they plunged
the whole body into the water; now custom obtaining, that the minister only
sprinkles the body or the head." So Barnabas,[18]
an apostolic writer of the first century, and who is mentioned in the Acts of
the Apostles, as a companion of the apostle Paul, describes baptism by going
down into and by coming up out of the water; "We descend," says he,
"into the water full of sin and filth; and we ascend, bringing forth fruit
in the heart, having fear and hope in Jesus, through the Spirit."

4. The end of baptism,
which is to represent the burial of Christ, cannot be answered in any other way
than by immersion, or covering the body in water; that baptism is an emblem of
the burial of Christ, is clear from Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. It would be
endless to quote the great number, even of "paedobaptist" writers, who
ingenuously acknowledge that the allusion in these passages, is to the ancient
rite of by immersion: as none but such who are dead are buried, so none but such
who are dead to sin, and to the law by the body of Christ, or who profess to be
so, are to be buried in and by baptism, or to be baptized; and as none can be
properly said to be buried, unless under ground, and covered with earth; so none
can be said to be baptized, but such who are put under water, and covered with
it; and nothing short of this can be a representation of the burial of Christ,
and of ours with him; not sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face; for
a corpse cannot be said to be buried when only a little earth or dust is
sprinkled or poured on it.

5. This may be concluded
from the various figurative and typical baptisms spoken of in scripture. As,

(1.) From the waters of the
flood, which Tertullian calls[19] the
baptism of the world, and of which the apostle Peter makes baptism the antitype
(1 Pet. 3:20,21). The ark in which Noah and his family were saved by water, was
God's ordinance; it was made according to the pattern he gave to Noah, as
baptism is; and as that was the object of the scorn of men, so is the ordinance
of baptism, rightly administered; and as it represented a burial, when Noah and
his family were shut up in it, so baptism; and when the fountains of the great
deep were broken up below, and the windows of heaven were opened above, the ark,
with those in it, were as it were covered with and immersed in water; and so was
a figure of baptism by immersion: and as there were none but adult persons in
the ark, who were saved by water in it, so none but adult persons are the proper
subjects of water baptism; and though there were few who were in the ark, it was
attended with a salutary effect to them, they were saved by water; so such who
truly believe in Christ, and are baptized, shall be saved, and that "by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ", which was typified by the coming of Noah and
his family out of the ark; to which baptism, as the antitype, corresponds, being
an emblem of the same (Rom. 6:4,5; Col. 2:12).

(2.) From the passage of
the Israelites under the cloud and through the sea, when "they were said to
be baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1,2). There
are various things in this account which agree with baptism; this was following
Moses, who directed them into the sea, and went before them; so baptism is a
following Christ, who has set an example to tread in his steps; and as the
Israelites were baptized into Moses, so believers are baptized into Christ, and
put him on; and this passage of theirs was after their coming out of Egypt, and
at the beginning of their journey through the wilderness to Canaan; so baptism
is administered to believers, at their first coming out of darkness and bondage
worse than Egyptian, and when they first enter on their Christian pilgrimage;
and as joy followed upon the former, "Then sang Moses and the children of
Israel", etc. so it often follows upon the latter; the eunuch, after
baptism, went on his way rejoicing: but chiefly this passage was a figure of
baptism by immersion; as the Israelites were "under the cloud", and so
under water, and covered with it, as persons baptized by immersion are;
"and passed through the sea", that standing up as a wall on both sides
them, with the cloud over them; thus surrounded they were as persons immersed in
water, and so said to be baptized; and thus Grotius remarks upon the passage.

(3.) From the various
washings, bathings, or baptisms of the Jews; called "various", because
of the different persons and things washed or dipped, as the same Grotius
observes; and not because of different sorts of washing, for there is but one
way of washing, and that is by dipping; what has a little water only sprinkled
or poured on it, cannot be said to be washed; the Jews had their sprinklings,
which were distinct from washings or bathings, which were always performed by
immersion; it is a rule, with them, that "wherever in the law washing of
the flesh, or of the clothes, is mentioned, it means nothing else than כוגּה לכ
תליכח "the dipping of the whole
body" in a laver--for if any man dips himself all over except the tip of
his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness."[20]
according to them.

(4.) From the sufferings of
Christ being called a baptism; "I have a baptism to be baptized with",
etc. (Luke 12:50), not water baptism, nor the baptism of the Spirit, with both
which he had been baptized; but the baptism of his sufferings, yet to come, he
was desirous of; these are called so in allusion to baptism, as it is an
immersion; and is expressive of the abundance of them, sometimes signified by
deep waters, and floods of waters; and Christ is represented as plunged into
them, covered and overwhelmed with them (Ps. 62:7; 69:1,2).

(5.) From the extraordinary
donation of the Holy Spirit, and his gifts unto, and his descent upon the
apostles on the day of Pentecost, which is called "baptizing" (Acts
1:5; 2:1,2), expressive of the very great abundance of them, in allusion to
baptism or dipping, in a proper sense, as the learned Casaubon[21] observes; *"Regard is had in this place to
the proper signification of the word baptizein, to
immerse or dip; and in this sense the apostles are truly said to be baptized,
for the house in which this was done, was filled with the Holy Ghost; so that
the apostles seemed to be plunged into it, as into some pool." All which
typical and figurative baptisms, serve to strengthen the proper sense of the
word, as it signifies an immersion and dipping the body into, and covering it in
water, which only can support the figure used. Nor is this sense of the word to
be set aside or weakened by the use of it in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 in the
former, it is said, "Except they wash, baptizwntai,
baptize, or dip themselves, they eat not"; and in it mention is made of baptismwn, "washings or dippings" of cups and
pots, brazen vessels, and of tables or beds; and in the latter, the Pharisee is
said to marvel at Christ, that he had not first ebaptisyh,
"washed, or dipped, before dinner"; all which agrees with the
superstitious traditions of the elders, here referred to, which enjoined dipping
in all the cases and instances spoken of, and so serve but the more to confirm
the sense of the word contended for; for the Pharisees, upon touching the common
people or their clothes, as they returned from market, or from any court of
judicature, were obliged to immerse themselves in water before they eat; and so
the Samaritan Jews:[22] "If the
Pharisees, says Maimonides,[23] touched
but the garments of the common people, they were defiled all one as if they had
touched a profluvious person, and needed immersion," or were obliged to it:
and Scaliger,[24] from the Jews observes,
"That the more superstitious part of them, everyday, before they sat down
to meat, dipped the whole body; hence the Pharisees admiration at Christ"
(Luke 11:38). And not only cups and pots, and brazen vessels were washed by
dipping, or putting them into water, in which way unclean vessels were washed
according to the law (Lev. 11:32), but even beds, pillows, and bolsters, unclean
in a ceremonial sense, were washed in this way, according to the traditions of
the elders referred to; for they say,[25]
"A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man "dips" it part by part,
it is pure." Again,[26] "If he
"dips the bed" in it (a pool of water) though its feet are plunged
into the thick clay (at the bottom of the pool) it is clean." And as for
pillows and bolsters, thus they say,[27]
"A pillow or a bolster of skin, when a man lifts up the mouth of them out
of the water, the water which is in them will be drawn; what must be done? He
must "dip" them, and lift them up by their fringes." Thus,
according to these traditions, the various things mentioned were washed by
immersion; and instead of weakening, strengthen the sense of the word pleaded
for.

The objections against
baptism, as immersion, taken from some instances of baptism recorded in
scripture, are of no force; as that of the three thousand, in Acts 2, not with
respect to their number; it may be observed, that though these were added to the
church in one and the same day, it does not follow, that they were baptized in
one day; but be it that they were, there were twelve apostles to administer the
ordinance, and it was but two hundred and fifty persons apiece; and besides,
there were seventy disciples, administrators of it; and supposing them employed,
it will reduce the number to six or seven and thirty persons each: and the
difference between dipping and sprinkling is very inconsiderable, since the same
form of words is used in the one way as in the other; and therefore it might be
done in one day, and in a small part of it too.[28]
Nor with respect to convenience for the administration of it; as water and
places of it sufficient to baptize in: here can be no objection, when it is
observed, what number of private baths were in Jerusalem for ceremonial
uncleanness; the many pools in the city, and the various apartments and things
in the temple fit for such a use; as the dipping room for the high priest, the
molten sea for the common priests, and the ten brazen lavers, each of which held
forty baths of water sufficient for the immersion of the whole body; all which
they might be allowed the use of, as they were of the temple; they "having
favor with all the people": not with respect to clothes, and change of
garments; it was only everyone's providing and bringing change of raiment for
himself. Another instance objected to is, that of the baptism of Saul (Acts
9:18), supposed to be done in the house where he was: but that does not
necessarily follow, but rather the contrary; since he "arose" from the
place where he was, in order to be baptized; and admitting it was done in the
house, it is highly probable there was a bath in the house, in which it might be
performed; since it was the house of a Jew, with whom it was usual to have baths
to wash their whole bodies in on certain occasions; and had it been performed by
sprinkling or pouring a little water on him, he needed not to have rose for that
purpose. Besides, he was not only bid to arise and be baptized, which would
sound very oddly if rendered, "be sprinkled" or "poured"
(Acts 22:16), but he himself says, that he, with others, were "buried
by" or "in baptism" (Rom. 6:4). Another instance is that of the
jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), in which account there is nothing that
makes it improbable that it was done by immersion; for it seems to be a clear
case, that the jailer, upon his conversion, took the apostles out of prison into
his own house, where they preached to him and his family (Acts 16:32), and after
this they went out of his house, and he and his were baptized, very probably in
the river without the city, where the oratory was (Acts 16:13), for it is
certain, that after the baptism of him and his family, he brought the apostles
into his house again, and set meat before them (Acts 16:33,34). Upon the whole,
these instances produced, fail of showing the improbability of baptism by
immersion; which must appear clear and manifest to every attentive reader of his
Bible, notwithstanding all that has been opposed unto it. The next thing to be
considered is,

V. Fifthly, the form in
which this ordinance is to be administered; which is "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19), which
contains in it a proof of a Trinity of Persons in the unity of the divine
essence, of the Deity of each Person, and of their equality to, and distinction
from each other; and shows, that this ordinance is performed under the authority
of all Three; in which a person submitting to it, expresses his faith in them,
and invocation of them, and gives up himself to them; obliging himself to yield
obedience to what they require of him, as well as putting himself under their
care and protection. This form is sometimes a little varied and otherwise
expressed; as sometimes only "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts
8:16), which is a part of the form for the whole; and includes in it the
substance of it, and of Christian baptism; and everything relating to the person
and offices of Christ, and his relation to and connection with the other Two
persons. Cornelius and his family were ordered to be baptized, "in the name
of the Lord" (Acts 10:48), that is, in the name of Jehovah, Father, Son,
and Spirit; for kuriov, Lord, in the New Testament,
answers to Jehovah in the Old. The form of baptism in Matthew 28:19 is in the
name of "the Father", etc. which single name denotes the one Deity,
power, and substance of Father, Son, and Spirit; the equal dignity, co-eternal
kingdom, and government in the Three perfect Persons; as it is expressed in the
synodical epistle of the general council at Constantinople.[29]

VI. Sixthly, the ends and
uses for which baptism is appointed, and which are answered by it.

1. One end of it, and a
principal one, as has been frequently hinted, is, to represent the sufferings,
burial, and resurrection of Christ; which is plainly and fully suggested in
Romans 6:4,5 and Colossians 2:12 his sufferings are represented by going into
the water, and being overwhelmed in it, his burial by a short continuance under
it, and being covered with it, and his resurrection by an immersion out of it.

2. It was practiced both by
John and by the apostles of Christ, for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Acts
2:38), not that that is the procuring and meritorious cause of it, which only is
the blood of Christ; but they who submit unto it, may, by means of it, be led,
directed, and encouraged to expect it from Christ. And so,

3. In like manner it is for
the washing away of sin, and cleansing from it; "Arise, and be baptized,
and wash thy sins" (Acts 22:16), this only is really done the blood of
Christ, which cleanses from all sin; baptism neither washes away original nor
actual sin, it has no such virtue in it;[30]
but it is a means of directing to Christ the Lamb of God, who, by his atoning
blood and sacrifice, has purged and continues to take away the sins of men.

4. A salutary or saving use
and effect is ascribed unto it; "The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth
also now save us"; should it be asked how, and by what means? the answer
follows, "By the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21), that is,
by leading the faith of the person baptized to Christ, as delivered for his
offences, and as risen again for his justification.

5. In the same passage it
is said to be of this use, and to serve this purpose, "The answer of a good
conscience towards God"; a man who believes baptism to be an ordinance of
God, and submits to it as such, discharges a good conscience, the consequence of
which is joy and peace; for though "for" keeping the commands of God
there is no reward, yet there is "in" keeping them; and this is their
reward, the testimony of a good conscience: for great peace have they which love
God and keep his commandments.

6. Yielding obedience to
this ordinance of Christ, is an evidence of love to God and Christ (1 John 5:3),
and such who from a principle of love to Christ keep his commandments, may
expect, according to his promise, to have fresh manifestations of his and his
Father's love, and to have communion with Father, Son, and Spirit (John
14:15,21,23). This is an end to be had in view, in obedience to it, and a very
encouraging one.

[17]Some represent the river Jordan, from Sandys's
account of it, as if it was a shallow river, and insufficient for immersion; but
what Sandyssays of it, is only
that it was not navigably deep, not above eight fathoms broad, nor, except, by
accident, heady. Travels, b. 3:p. 110. ed. 5. But Mr. Maundrel says, for its
breadth, it might be about twenty yards over, and in depth it far exceeded his
height. Journey from Aleppo, &c. p. 83. ed. 7. vid. Reland. de Palestina,
50:1. p. 278. And Adamnan. in ib. And therefore must be sufficient for
immersion. And Strabo speaks of ships of burden sailing through Jordan, Geograph.
50:16. p. 519. And that it was a river to swim in, and navigable, according to
the Jewish writers, see Gill on “Matthew 3:5”.

[28]Ten thousand were baptized in one day by Austin
the monk, in the river Swale, if our historians are to be credited. Fox's Acts
and Monuments, vol. 1:p. 154. Ranulph. Polychron. 50:5. c. 10. The twelve sons
of Wolodomir, Grand Prince of Russia, with twenty thousand Russians, in cent.
10. were baptized in one day, by a missionary of Photius the patriarch; and the
ancient Russians would allow no person to be a Christian, unless he had been
dipped quite under water. Strahlenberg. Histor. Geograph. Descript. of the
Northern and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia, ch. 8. p. 283, 286. Vid. Fabricii
Lux Evangel. p. 475. No doubt assistance was had in both instances; but these
show what numbers may be baptized in a day.

[29]Apud. Theodorit. Eccl. Hist. 50:5. c. 9. This form
was first changed and corrupted by Mark the heretic, and his followers, in the
second century; who baptized into the name of the unknown Father of all; into
truth the mother of all; into him who descended on Jesus; into union and
redemption, and communion of powers: the same also first changed and corrupted
the mode; taking a mixture of oil and water, poured it on the head, and then
anointed with balsam. Vid, Irenaeum adv. Haeres. 50:1. c. 18.